Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of specialty stores


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. —  Aitias  // discussion 00:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

List of specialty stores

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I moved this material out of specialty store, since it occupied the bulk of the article body to no good reason. I see no reason for this list to exist; it's too long and too arbitary to belong in the article body, but it lists only a tiny handful of the thousands of specialty store chains worldwide, it makes no attempt to be comprehensive in order to act as a stimulus for article creation, nor does it add any value over using a category to tag articles instead. Suggest deletion. The Anome (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete--this is not an encyclopedic list; it serves no purpose that I can think of (other than what the Yellow Pages might offer too). Drmies (talk) 01:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. To fully stock this list it would number in the millions and then what? Is there a WP:WP IS NOT A LIST OF STUFF THAT YOU THINK YOU CAN LIST JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE WAY TOO MUCH TIME ON YOUR HANDS, BUT YOU REALLY CAN'T. (sorry, I can't keep track of all the WP:NOTs.). --Crunch (talk) 03:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO. KuyaBriBri Talk 15:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete to avoid list of department stores. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, no! It exists: List of department stores :-C Anna Lincoln (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have listed that one at AfD. Articles for deletion/List of department stores by country KuyaBriBri Talk 19:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete WP is not the yellow pages. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as essentially limitless list. Stifle (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:IINFO. There is absolutely no way that this list could ever be comprehensive. fuzzy510 (talk) 11:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and/or Merge and redirect back to specialty stores This list has a future, it really needs to define specialty stores more completely and specifically, or else split out each specialty to form separate lists. Doesn't seem to be be the healthiest article, but that is probably because it was created by a very unsympathetic editor as per nom.  If definition of specialty stores is improved, it will pass WP:NOTABILITY very easily.  An editor wishing to improve this article should actually read WP:NOT and WP:LIST; this list passes WP:NOT#DIR very very easily.  If list is deleted in the near future it will obviously reappear, it's a good idea for a list, either in concatenated format as it is now, or as separate articles for the many genres of specialty stores. --Mr Accountable (talk) 05:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect back to Specialty store. The nominator created this article by overwriting a redirect with content split off from the original article; then a few minutes later nominated it for deletion. This seems like an abuse of the AfD process. AfD is not for deciding article content. Whether the list should be in the original article or not should be discussed at Talk:Specialty store, not here. DHowell (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: if, as you say, the list has a future, it can't stay in the article itself, as it must then expand hugely (there are hundreds of thousands of specialty store chains worldwide) and thus overwhelm the article content. In which case, someone will have to move it List of specialty stores... and then we will need to have this AfD discussion anyway. In any case, a single list would not be enough to cover this topic. We would have to have a whole huge farm of lists, broken down by national and subnational region, in order to keep page lengths feasible. And at some point, someone would have to put them all up for AfD, per WP:NOTDIR. Or we could kill it now. -- The Anome (talk)
 * Agree completely; procedurally, that is absolutely the correct action to take in this case. Or just keep the article.  --Mr Accountable (talk) 10:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: This was not an attempt to get around the normal article editing procedures. I split this off from the article because the list had become the main content of the article: that is to say, the article was in effect a WP:COATRACK for this list. This is a dichotomy: this is either a valid topic for a list, in which case it should be expanded, and therefore must be moved to the current list-article title (which I've already done, and will persist if this AfD fails), or it isn't, in which case it should be deleted (which will happen if this AfD succeeds). Either way, the list gets the AfD consideration required to see if it's a valid list. -- The Anome (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Watch out Anome, because these listcrufters are sneaky. I've seen a list which was legitimately deleted at AFD merged back into its parent article, thus making a mockery of the wisdom of the AFD process. After this is deleted we will have to be vigilant in tracking down anything resembling a list of stores by specialty and nuking it, or this AFD will have been a meaningless farce. Benefix (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete honestly, if we allow this to sit like it is, we will get loads of non-notable specialty stores. While I like the list now, a category works wonders for situations like this as there isn't really anymore material to add to the list (besides maybe what the store sells, but that should be obvous from the store's name). Tavix (talk) 04:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it should be obvious from the article's title what merchandise stores like Supre, Charlotte Russe (retailer) and CSN stores sell. With foreign stores with more inscrutable names it might be more tricky but that would fall foul of WP:Listcruft #2, of interest to a very small number of people. Trivia like country of origin, date founded etc can easily be accessed merely clicking on the link to the article. Let's allow the category system to work its wonders. Benefix (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, I'm somewhat concerned that people would pop up with a "keep" vote after 7 consecutive deletes. It seems to imply that these people regard other participants as imbeciles who can't figure out the right answer for themselves. This is obviously a case for ignoring all rules, whatever WP:LIST may have to say. Benefix (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.